Trial court justified in striking out defence under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for willful non-compliance with unchallenged order to produce pleaded documents on oath.

1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, which reads as under:-

Today, ld. Defendant’s counsel has filed copy of gift deed. However, remaining documents at Sr. No.2, 3, 4 and 5 which the defendant was directed to produce has filed his affidavit in which he submitted that original memorandum of family settlement was filed alongwith return under the Ceiling Act more than 45 years ago but the same is not traceable and agreement dated 1.1.1977 is also not traceable. The affidavit is taken on record. Since, the defendant, who had pleaded about agreement dated 1.1.1977 has failed to produce it despite directions of the Court, therefore, his defence is struck out under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC qua this agreement and also qua sale deed allegedly executed by Lachhi Ram and qua notice served upon Lachhi Ram. However, the question whether the family settlement was filed with the Ceiling Act and has misplaced will remain open for adjudication.

Now be put up for filing replication on 19.12.2018.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents herein have filed a suit against the petitioner herein praying for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the decree for declaration may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.59/59, bearing Khasra No.367, 369, 370, 373, 374, 375, 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 408, 410, 411, 412 and 414 kitas 20 measuring 160 Bighas 16 Biswas 14 Biswansi situated in Mauja Jatrog, Hadbast No.433, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, District Solan HP and the defendant has no right, title and interest in or over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. The mutation No.128 and 129 dated 11.6.76 sanctioned behind the back of the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest are wrong, illegal, null, void and subsequently the mutation No.320 dated 25.10.2010 sanctioned in favour of the defendant in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 11.7.1996 passed in RFA No.61/74 by the Hon’ble High Court of HP is wrong, illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Consequently the revenue entries incorporated in pursuance of mutation No.320 in favour of the defendant are also wrong, illegal, null, void and are in operative qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and alleged revenue entries do not confer any right, title and interest unto the defendant. Consequently a decree for permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant restraining the defendant from raising any claim qua the suit land, causing any interference in the ownership and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and illegally, making alienation qua the suit land and causing damage and waste to the existing structures and standing valuable trees therefrom and also from changing nature of the suit land or any part thereof either by himself, through his agents, servants, or any person claiming under him whosoever in any manner whatsoever. In case during the pendency of the suit the defendant succeeds in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly or illegally in that event a decree for possession may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against t